Human empathy is born to conscious living processes.   Religions ar all manmade and learned,  what divides people by religions is some people sell the idea that some people are better than others.  For example, how can anyone have compassion for a person that will tell you tht they are chosen special above and beyond you, by g-d?


To answer the question, YES!   The medical field is the perfect proof.
LOok at wht has happened on this earth when science branched out from religious authority https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
That is proof positive that secular compassion supersedes theologically claim to morality.
The other proof positive is the instinct of mother to infant newborn.


And to give you a choice, perhaps one more on topic:
Compassion is a parent or guardian allowing the youth in their care to associate with other members of their Sunday School class. As opposed to doing limited "background checks" and harping on their past mistakes, or even choices, with the "mistake" part being debatable.
Or more accurate to what actually happened to me, a landlord not allowing an adult to associate with other adults in the same Sunday School class, at the same church as the landlord, when I was struggling to earn a "living wage" and dependent on her! Because people
who go to the same church are to be condemned.
At what point do you show compassion or forgiveness? At what point do you reach out.


If one accepts a premise of pro-choice being compassion for the parent...as the choice being made--abortion--necessarily entails the termination of the life of a child...where is the compassion for the child? How is ending one life to alleviate potential sufferings of another life compassionate?
That the pro-choice position is compassionate towards the parent is itself open to debate--it presumes both an absence of physical injury (Kermit Gosnell, comes to mind) and an absence of psychological trauma arising from the killing of the unborn child.
Your arguments regarding trust presume facts not in evidence.  The initial questioning involved Fundamentalist Christians. If you mean to assert that Fundamentalist Christians are all involved in the KKK or other White Supremacy groups, that is an extraordinary claim that demands extraordinary evidence.
However, you do raise a point about compassion vs control. Most welfare is presented as a form of compassion--yet welfare benefits themselves have been promoted (one could even say evangelized) by encouraging the disappearance of fathers from families.  This was articulated as a problem by liberal scholar and later Senator Daniel P. Moynihan in the 1965 study "The Negro Family: The Case For National Action"; his conclusion regarding welfare was thus: "The steady expansion of welfare programs can be taken as a measure of the steady disintegration of the Negro family structure over the past generation in the United States."
Within your distinctions about compassion vs control, does welfare present more as compassion or as control? Does it promote personal prosperity, or does it erode key social structures that are shown, by the long train of human history as well as statistical evidence, to best elevate and enable people--strong healthy families within strong healthy communities--forcing greater submission to state authority?  If welfare is more control than compassion, is opposition to welfare potentially more compassion than control?
I quite agree that control is a valid dimension of a discussion of compassion. I am, however, not at all persuaded that the discussion would inure to the benefit of secularists.


Your point about welfare eroding values is a bit misplaced.
Welfare in such an instance is compassion. The values were already eroded, the welfare system just revealed it.
Now that we see it, we can address it correctly. Without taking away welfare. Well, not unless that is what is called for on an individual basis.


I was about 6 when they told me about the golden rule:
If you don't like someone being nasty to you -- then don't be nasty anyone else.
If you like people being nice to you -- then be nice to other people.
It was easy to see that if everyone followed this then we would all be better off.
The religion was more complicated: A, B and C are right and X, Y and Z are wrong because God says so. But this was often hard to take because God had some weird idea about right and wrong. This all fell away when I stopped believing, but the Golden rule still makes sense.
A few believers say that anyone who does not believe the same as them is evil. This is just propaganda. Many of the people who claim this turn out to be very unpleasant people: They believe in morality, but they do not practice it.


Tao in what respect? As in a theoretical, interdisciplinary, variance...or...as an analytical, non-organic, spectrum?


As the meme goes, if you need religion to have compassion, you need morals not religion, and this...